Rencher v. State Of Nevada et al

Filing 27

ORDER Granting 25 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint. Robert Bannister answer due 2/17/2012; Teodoro Bernardo answer due 2/17/2012; Cheryl Dressler answer due 2/17/2012; Rodrigo Espejo answer due 2/17/2012; Sharon LNU answer due 2/17/2012; Howard Skolnik answer due 2/17/2012; Brian Williams, Sr answer due 2/17/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/29/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

EDDIE RENCHER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01040-RCJ-CWH
ORDER

12
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for an Enlargement of Time (#25),
13
filed December 27, 2011. Defendants request a 45-day extension to file a response to Plaintiff’s
14
complaint. If granted, Defendants’ responsive pleading would be due no later than February 17,
15
2012. The extension is necessary because assigned counsel has accepted another position and,
16
therefore, the case has to be transferred to another attorney in the office of the Nevada Attorney
17
General.
18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides “[w]hen an act may or must be done
19
within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion
20
or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.”
21
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Good cause is equated with the exercise of due diligence. Guillen v.
22
Owens, 2011 WL 6032861 (D.Ariz.) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
23
609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Ordinarily, staffing changes do not satisfy the good cause standard of Rule 6.
24
Guillen, 2011 WL 6032861 *2. However, because this is a first request for an extension and
25
counsel is leaving her position with the Nevada Attorney General’s office, the Court finds there is
26
good cause for the extension. Defendants must file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint on or before
27
February 17, 2012. No further extensions of the response deadline will be considered.
28
Accordingly,

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for an Enlargement of Time (#25) is

2

granted. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint on or before Thursday,

3

February 17, 2012.

4

DATED this 29th day of December, 2011.

5
6
7

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2